doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Balance at hingepin question

HD - I don't agree that one method of setting balance point will achieve "perfect weight distribution." Different shooters prefer different balance points based on their individual shooting styles and physiology. I'll do some research with this method. Certainly, it take into account hand placement, but I expect there are other factors.

JC - "improve its handling" is a subjective evaluation. Only the individual shooter handling the gun can judge if it is improved. The focus of my work is to establish objective measurements so shooters can know and communicate what they are evaluating. The weight, balance, and swing numbers of a given gun are objective. How you feel about them are subjective. I do not believe the goal is to establish generally optimum handling, rather, it is to establish optimum handling for each individual shooter. This is the same gosl as stock fit.

Rman, subjectivity notwithstanding, and based on your handling of modified guns,i.e. guns that may have had weight added to the stock, what is your subjective opinion concerning their new handling characteristics ? :-)

JC

OE configuration:
Ithaca NID 4E BLE Trap #457465 - single selective trigger - 12 gauge 2 3/4" - 32" bbls - 14 1/4" LOP (3/4" pas): 8.69 pounds, 6 1/2" balance, 2.48 unmounted, 10.55 mounted, 11.50 HWR.

Modified configuration:
Ithaca NID 4E BLE Trap #457465 SST - 12 gauge 2 3/4" - 32" bbls - 15 5/8" LOP w/ CSMC 1 1/2"pad + 5/8" spacer: 9.125 pounds, 5 1/2" balance, 2.95 unmounted, 11.73 mounted, 12.24 HWR.

Differences: 1 3/8" increase in LOP - 7 oz weight gain (all at butt) - balance moved rearward 1" - unmounted swing increased 20%, mounted swing increased 12%, and HWR increased 7%.

For my purpose of trap shooting, this gun is improved in handling for me. Also, I shot sporting clays well with it at the Vintage Cup. I will soon baseline it for skeet. I seriously doubt that I would carry it afield where a lot of ground was to be covered, though.

There is no general answer as to hurt of help handling. Modifications must be focused on both of the issues with fit and with handling.

Does that answer your question?

Yes, the mentioned author is from the school that believes in equal weight destribution between the shooter's hands. This school has some good arguments for their view - but I agree the subject of balance is subjective.

However, I have found the method of "taking the balance" not only of the whole gun, but of its parts (stock+action vs barrels+foreend) as well, extremely useful in practice. Of course, Rocketman's machine is the best way, but, let's say, it's not always readily availaible. When you only have about fifteen minutes in a shop to "just look" at a gun, you aren't likely to bother with the formulas, yet might need something more exact then simply balancing a gun. Let me illustrate.

About a year ago I was considering a domestic sidelock of 1944 vintage, and noticed, that "on the pencil" it balanced almost exactly where my own old 12ga did - ahead of the "between-the-hands" point enough to lassify the gun as "muzzle-heavy". Yet, when mounted, my gun felt much better balanced. I took the guns apart. The "rear ends" of both guns balanced properly. But the barrel+foreend bits didn't. My old gun's "front end" balanced where my left hand holds it when mounted, but the 1944 sidelock's barrels balanced noticably ahead of that spot.

I took a closer look at the 1944's barrels. They were strangely shaped, almost conical, quite unlike the classic "leggy" shape of double gun barrels. That 1944's barrels had a lot of metal in front.

So, to my personal taste, both guns were ill-balanced, but for different reasons. My old gun had barrels that were relatively heavier than the stock+action. The 1944 sidelock was the correct front-end-to-rear-end weight ratio, but the weight destribution of the barrels was very wrong, and ruined the balance - and the "feel" - of the whole gun!

The above is just personal observation and opinion, and if I'n wrong, I'd like to know it.

I find the idea of balance of the 'two halves' of the gun individually quite interesting. I have never done that, but, will. My problem is, do you use the middle point of the hands position? or the most forward? most rearward? I have a rather large hand and where one measures from could vary as much as four and a quarter inches!

Hairy

Any well made, well thought-out gun will be good enough for most.
They are not Italian violins, nor atom smashers.
They are triflings that most do not have a feel for.

HD - The method you describe will work if you establish a weight proportion for the two pieces (stock + action and barrels + forearm). You must weigh and balance the whole gun and each of the two described units. Then you must compare overall balance, compare for each unit balance to overall balance point, and weight proportion.

I'll run a few tests and see how this works out.

R'man thank you for your feedback. Drilling a hole and doing some experimenting
should not do a lot of harm.

JC

JC - I'll use differing guns and tape on weights as needed. I'm thinking about how to lay out this experiment. Interesting idea.

I've dug through my (sadly limited amount of) books. One of our shotgun gurus, S.A. Buturlin, states the weight of the complete gun ought to be 2.0 to 2.2 times the weight of the barrels (without foreend). Another expert believes the weight of the "rear end" devided by the weight of the "front end" should give anout .995 to 1.005 ratio. (I can't say if these ratios were invented by the respective authors or picked up from W.W. Greener or somebody else.)

The obvious guess here would be that if a shotgun must have some weight-forward and still feel balanced, the barrels+foreend should weigh a bit more than the rear end, yet balance at the fron-hand grip spot (BTW, I think the "grip spot" for the front hand should be determined by the middle of the palm)

I can hardly wait for the results of the tests